Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Not ugly - Revolting! America fights back against extremists and corporate tyranny. Also, some light hearted commentary from your basic average dude.
Not ugly - Revolting! America fights back against extremists and corporate tyranny. Also, some light hearted commentary from your basic average dude.
19 comments:
"What explains these differences?"
Maybe thousands and thousands of generations of evolution?
Dogs were domesticated from gray wolves, yet look at how many varied breeds and types exist today. They are certainly more morphologically varied than humans, and having only been domesticated about 15,000 years ago, they have had far less time to do it....of course, a lot of intentional breeding for specific characteristics was involved too (but it seems that even the vast bulk of that has been done only in recent millenia)
If anything, the better question would be; "Shouldn't we all look far less similar?"
PS: If you really want to have some mind stretching fun with Adam & Eve, check this out:
http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2011/09/adam-and-eve-and-ted-and-alice.html
Evolution. Interesting........
Imagine millions of years of "evolution". Why it may even be possible that modern day man evolved from...apes?
Interesting topic. You see, I have a book that I read a few years back that covers a scientists' finding with this subject. The name of the book is "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Bryan Sykes. Pub 2001.
From the back cover:
How did he do this? The Seven Daughters of Eve is a first hand account of his research into an extraordinary gene which passes undiluted from generation to generation through the maternal line, allowing us to track our genetic ancestors through time and space. Professor Sykes has found that almost all Europeans can trace their ancestry back to one of seven women, who he has named Ursula, Xenia, Helena, Velda, Tara, Katrine and Jasmine.
me again: I found the book compelling and easy to follow. It's about 350 some pages and is in paperback.
Lisa in Indy
Should have added this from the back of the book too:
When Professor Bryan Sykes, a leading world authority on DNA and human evolution was called in to examine the frozen remains of a man trapped in glacial ice in northern Italy five thousand years ago, it was the first lead in a fascinating scientific detective story. Remarkably, Professor Sykes was able to track down a living relative of the Ice Man in Britain.
That's what got me to buy the book and read it. Absolutely fascinating.
" ...it may even be possible that modern day man evolved from...apes?"
Unlikely. The theory is not that modern man evolved from apes, but that modern man and apes are both descended from a shared, now extinct, ancestral primate species.
"Evolution. Interesting........"
Here's another way to think about it: I bear some resemblance to my younger brother (now sadly passed), and we both share obvious physical traits with our mom and dad. The family connections are visible in the faces of our first cousins, though less so. Old black and white photos of long passed relatives begin to show even less resemblance, and presumably that trend of growing dissimilarity would continue the further back in family history we go.
When I look at the face on the statue of Louis Hebert in Quebec, I see no family resemblance, although the direct genealogical descent is well documented.
All this change over just a few hundred years, and all within a population within a relatively small and continuously shared geographical region.
When we consider that for the vast span of human history, huge chunks of the worlds "races" have at times lived in near total continental isolation from each other, with very little opportunity for large scale inter-breeding between any but the most local populations,then it may indeed be quite remarkable how little, as a species, we have changed.
So is it acceptable to assume that if you believe in Adam and Eve - you must also believe in evolution? Otherwise we would all look the same? It makes perfect sense to me - even though I doubt the story of Adam and Eve is true.
The point of this post is to very simply point out that even if you are a Christian you can still believe in evolution.
Someone needs to let all the GOP candidates know that.
"So is it acceptable to assume that if you believe in Adam and Eve -you must also believe in evolution? Otherwise we would all look the same?"
No. That doesn't follow at all. You are mixing up a bunch of separate issues.
Obviously, there are people who believe in a literal Adam & Eve while at the same time disbelieving in the reality of Darwinian evolution. These people tend to be found among the naive-literalist wing of schismatic Christianity (various sects of Protestant "Fundamentalism").
Most of them tend to accept the notion of intra-species evolution, while rejecting the notion of cross species evolution. This means that they readily accept the idea that characteristics within a species can evolve and change over time (such as all the different breeds of dogs evolving from the first domesticated dogs), but they reject the notion that one species could evolve into another completely different species (a dog could not evolve into a horse).
Most Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican Christians (who combined represent over two thirds of the worlds Christians), along with many "mainstream" Protestant denominations, have no problem theologically or scientifically, believing in the biological evolution of human beings from earlier non-human animals.
As far as I am aware, no one, Christian or atheist, enthusiastic Darwinist, or Darwinian critic, has propounded this strange notion (which you seem so hung up upon) that somehow the Adam & Eve story implies that "we should all look the same".
"The point of this post is to very simply point out that even if you are a Christian you can still believe in evolution. "
You could have just said "Even if you are a Christian you can still believe in evolution." and have been done with it.
It's old news, and the only ones who would have disagreed with it would have been a minority of fundamentalist Biblical-literalists, and a few under-educated atheists who had no idea what they were talking about.
As far as the GOP contenders go, I don't really know what the Mormons believe (or even if they are even technically "Chrsitian") so I don't really know (or particularly care) where Romney or Huntsman stand on this question. Rick Santorum is Catholic, so he shouldn't have any issue with it. As for the others, I seriously doubt that any of them would claim that you couldn't accept a belief in the biological evolution of humans from earlier animal forms and still be a sincere Christian, even if some them personally have doubts about Darwinism.
Oh yeah, I forgot Gingrich, who is also Catholic (a convert), so I KNOW he has no problem with the idea that you can still be a Christian and believe in evolution.
"It's old news, and the only ones who would have disagreed with it would have been a minority of fundamentalist Biblical-literalists, and a few under-educated atheists who had no idea what they were talking about."
Or every one of the GOP candidates when asked the question - Do you believe in evolution? To them evolution means emphatically that we did evolve from apes - without using common sense that it is happening all the time - even as we speak.
I think we can keep this one short by simply recognizing that none of the GOP candidates seem to exhibit any common sense.
"...the only ones who would have disagreed with it..."
"Or every one of the GOP candidates when asked the question - Do you believe in evolution?"
False.
Do you ever even bother to research anything before it just flies out of your mouth?
Or is it your magical theory that if you just repeat a lie often enough, it will somehow become true?
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/08/evolution_gop_candidates.html
True - I saw it with my own eyes. But, I'll admit that it was an early forum. I haven't ready your article yet.
Please provide a link to that earlier forum of which you speak (if you have it).
I strongly suspect that in reality their answers were far more nuanced than as you are portraying them.
You will have to find your own link - I saw it on TV.
"I saw it on TV"
Translation: I can't remember what they actually said, so I will just make something up that makes them all sound really ignorant and stupid.
Before the internets, Andre insisted everyone carry around a card catalog (based on the dewey decimal system) of books, magazine articles and television manuscripts to back up any comment, opinion, personal experience or theory he disagreed with.
Be careful Denbec, Professor Andre does not grade on a curve. ;-)
What was that colorful phrase Dennis once used (or was it you, Thohea)?
"I'm calling out your B.S."
Well, that's what I did, and it turned out the hand Dennis was holding was squat.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
You get a gold star for effort, though.
Class dismissed.
My statement needs no translation.
"My statement needs no translation."
You're right. What it needs is substantiation or correction.
I won't hold my breath...
Post a Comment